(1.) This is a Rule calling upon the District Magistrate of Midnapur and on the opposite party to show cause why the orders of the lower Courts referred to in the petition should not be set aside and suit other or further order made as to this occur may seem fit and proper. The order referred to are, 17 W.R. 46 Cr, that of Mr. Jagat Chandri Mitra, and 1 A. 17 (F.B.) : 1 Ind. Dec. (N.S.) 11 that of the First Additional Special Judge of Midnapur. The case of the petitioner is, that the opposite party filed a kobala during the bearing of an application made by the petitioner against the opposite party under Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The case was heard by Mr. Rajendra Nath Rakhit who found the Kobala to be a forgery. The said Mr. R.N. Rakhit is described in the petition as an Assistant Settlement Officer," the more correct description would be Assistant "Revenue Officer," the term used in Section 105 of the Bengal Tenancy Act. The petitioner applied to Mr. R.N. Rakhit fir sanction to prosecute the opposite party under Sections 193, 46 j 471, Indian Penal Code.
(2.) Mr. Rakhit was on the point of going to Jessore, he having been transferred to that place, and he consequently did not take any action.
(3.) Applieation was then made to Mr. K.C. Ganguli, who was then acting as the Revenue Officer, he transferred the application to an Assistant Revenue Officer in the District of Midnapur, Mr. J.C. Mitra, who dismissed the application, holding that he had no jurisdiction to deal with it. Ha directed the applicant to move the proper Court for the sanction asked for and further directed the petition to be filed. The petitioner then made an application to the First Additional Special Judge of Midnapur, who, on the 24th July 1910, dismissed the application on the ground that the application to him was not by way of appeal, but was a substantive application, and that as sanction had been neither given nor refused by the Subordinate Court, he held that the application was not maintainable.